One point obviously has to do with Google accepting some level of responsibility for what gets posted on the app store they manage. It’s hard to not imagine this behavior as a requirement enforced by their own team of lawyers – there is no way to avoid being held at least somewhat responsible for a marketplace that you build and suppport.

It will be interesting to see how the various players respond to tethering (or similar) applications that are sold outside the approved market place. At some point, if the carrier really wants to control access to a feature like tethering to protect a revenue potential, they are going to have to find a way to disallow tethering except from approved applications that participate in the revenue sharing, or they are going to end up trying to block tethered access entirely. Both cut deeply into the declaration of openness to a significant degree – it’s like having Linux because it’s open but then having your ISP prevent you from using anything except pre-approved (and paid-for) ports. This isn’t the openness that was envisioned by most people, I would think.

I do find it interesting to read about the folks (not just with G1, the same occurs with iPhones) who read the user license and then promptly ignore it, claiming that they bought the hardware and can bloody well do what they want with it. I’m not a lawyer, and wouldn’t even want to watch one on TV, but it’s hard to rationalize how users buy hardware that comes with implicit (as in “click here to agree to terms of service”) end user licensing requirements and then claim not to be bound by them. Somewhere, too many of us are just looking for a way to cut our own deal. Most of us didn’t invent a smartphone we like, or build out a wireless network to support it. But since someone else did, some of us think is perfectly ethical to take someone else’s work under our own terms and conditions instead of those who created the device/feature/service we want to use.

Finally, until someone creates an “open” wireless carrier, this is all ultimately likely to be moot – the carrier is looking for ways to make money to justify the huge capital costs of building the network. Every innovation will be viewed in terms of what monetization opportunities exist for it. That is the natural behavior of capitalism. Neither good nor bad, just true. Attempts to graft a truely open and freely evolving mobile phone to a closed and controlled infrastructure are going to constantly be chipping away at the definition of “open”, I would think.

Maybe Google should put some of its massive resources into building out the open network to go with the open software in order to have a chance at fully realizing their dream. But of course, they’ll have to find a way to monetize that as well. Pop up ads when you dial your phone, anyone?

“There is nothing “questionable” in an application that enables tethering. Period.”

True, but I was referring to the app in the context of installing it on a device whose carrier does not allow tethering. I thought that was clear, but I guess not. Anyway, in such a case it’s absolutely questionable. Google agrees with me, which is why they pulled it.

All,

I appreciate the difference between installing from one store as opposed to having other options, but that has nothing to do with Android’s “openness”. One can install from multiple sources on Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and Palm devices and nobody would consider those devices open.

The point of my article is that when Google announced the market they made a big deal out of how “open” it was. In fact, they used the open atmosphere to help explain why they called it a market. This steaming pile of hyperbole was spread far and wide. But it seemed clear that the market would have to fall under the same policing the App Store does, and we now see that’s the case. THAT is what my article is about.

Should the carriers get their heads our of their rectums in regard to tethering? I think so. Is there a big advantage to having alternate sources of mobile apps in addition to a main store, marketplace, or whatever they call it? That’s debatable. But neither topic changes my post.

Obviously if you decide to install a bittorrent client and download copyrighted material that is illegal and i wouldn’t argue that. But it’s not up to google or apple to make it illegal for you to install a bittorrent client.

Apple’s criteria for what is taken down from the apple store is questionable at best. I like the idea that what i can install is not dictated and restricted by the business interests of one company.

Any point that revolves around Google making questionable apps “easier” than Apple does, well, that’s a weak point at best.

@Micheal the fact that most users won’t go beyond the market place doesn’t change the fact that the device is basically open and you can install what you want on it. Google can’t be expected to endorse every single app that is written for the Android platform.

Creating an application that enables a useful feature like tethering is not different that selling a car that can drive at 250 km/h in a country where the speed limit is 120 km/h. It is the responsibility of the driver to not break the law by driving too fast. And so it is the responsibility of the user of a phone to not break his contract with his provider, whether or not the contract contains ridiculous constraints. And if a driver or user decides to break the law or his contract, than it is his own decision and he has to face the consequences.

Fair enough, but my point is that Android being “open” does not make these types of apps any less questionable. That they were banned from the Android Market tends to bear that out.

Limitations (within reason) actually encourage innovation.

I wont be changing my iPhone unless i see major difference in terms of openness with Android.

Anyway i’m quite happy with my iPhone and if i wanne use my mobile as a modem i always have my nokia that works like a charm :)